[No.  68 — Second  Series— 3000] 


Indian  Rights  Association, 

1305  Arch  Street, 
Philadelphia,  February  29,  1904. 


ANOTHER  “CENTURY  OF  DISHONOR”? 


We  appeal  for  justice  on  behalf  of  the  Rosebud  Indians, 
of  South  Dakota,  and  insist  that  the  Government,  in  taking 
their  lands,  without  their  consent,  in  the  capacity  of  guar- 
dian and  under  the  guise  of  law,  shall  not  confiscate  three- 
fourths  of  its  value,  but  should  provide  that  the  Indian 
owners  receive  reasonable  compensation  therefor. 

The  clear  statement  of  the  case  written  for  “The  Out- 
look” by  Mr.  George  Kennan,  and  Senate  Document  No. 
158,  Fifty-eighth  Congress,  second  session  (a  memorial  of 
the  Indian  Rights  Association  addressed  to  Congress), 
which  follow,  show  the  gross  injustice  threatened  the 
Rosebud  Indians  by  the  bill  (H.  R.  10,418),  which  has 
passed  the  House  of  Representatives  and  was  favorably 
reported  by  committee  to  the  Senate,  where  it  is  now 
pending. 

Until  the  recent  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  (January 
5,  1903)  in  the  case  of  Lone  Wolf  vs.  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior,  which  held  that  Congress  may  abrogate  at  will 
an  Indian  treaty,  it  was  the  uniform  policy  of  the  Govern- 
ment to  respect  (in  form,  at  least)  the  treaties  entered 
into  with  its  Indian  wards.  Since  the  court  has  clothed 
Congress  with  the  authority  of  an  absolute  guardian,  it  is 
incumbent  upon  the  law-making  power  to  see  that  the 
interests  of  its  wards  are  protected.  The  bill  in  question 
proposes  to  sell  416,000  acres  of  the  Rosebud  Indian  lands. 


2 


without  their  consent,  to  homestead  settlers  at  about  one- 
fourth  its  actual  value ; and,  moreover,  the  payment  of  this 
insufficient  price  is  not  even  guaranteed  the  Indians  by 
the  Government.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  the  Rose- 
bud Indians,  in  common  with  the  Great  Sioux  Nation, 
hold  this  land  by  the  most  solemn  treaty  with  the  Govern- 
ment, having  given  as  a consideration  full  relinquishment 
of  claims  to  other  lands. 

At  the  Santee  Agency  (fifteen  miles  from  Rosebud), 
where  the  soil  is  inferior  to  that  on  the  Rosebud  tract, 
many  sales  of  inherited  Indian  lands  have  been  made  at 
$3000  a quarter  section,  or  $18.75  acre.  Two  years  ago 
an  Indian  allottee  leased  her  lands  (lying  within  the  district 
it  is  proposed  to  sell)  at  a yearly  rental  of  $2.50  an  acre, 
almost  as  much  as  Congress  would  sell  the  land  for;  and 
this  is  not  an  isolated  instance.  Such  facts  speak  for 
themselves  as  to  the  actual  value  of  the  land. 

Since  this  injustice  to  the  Rosebud  Indians  has  been 
brought  to  the  President’s  attention,  it  is  probable  that  the 
threatened  wrong  may  be  averted.  There  is,  however,  need 
to  arouse  a healthy  public  sentiment  that  will  demand  of 
the  law-making  power  fair  treatment  in  this  as  well  as 
similar  cases  that  may  arise. 

All  friends  of  the  Indian  are  urged  to  write  to  their 
representatives  in  Congress  (Senate  and  House)  calling 
attention  to  the  Rosebud  bill,  and  inviting  careful  scrutiny 
of  similar  legislation  that  may  hereafter  be  attempted. 

Any  help  rendered  by  the  press  in  arousing  a demand 
for  justice  will  be  appreciated. 

Philip  C.  Garrett, 
President  Indian  Rights  Association. 


3 


[From  “ The  Outlook,”  New  York,  February  27,  1904.] 

INDIAN  LANDS  AND  FAIR  PLAY. 

By  George  Kennan. 

On  the  5th  of  January,  1903,  the  United  States  Supreme 
Court  decided,  in  the  case  of  Lone  Wolf  et  al.  against 
Hitchcock,  that  Congress  has  full  power  to  abrogate  exist- 
ing Indian  treaties,  or  to  violate  such  treaties  without 
notice  to  the  other  parties  in  interest,  and  to  dispose  of 
Indian  reservation  lands  at  its  own  discretion,  regardless 
of  treaty  stipulations.  The  Court  assumed,  as  a matter 
of  course,  that  Congress  would  exercise  this  power  “only 
from  considerations  of  governmental  policy,  . . . and 

with  perfect  good  faith  to  the  Indians”;  but  as  to  the 
existence  of  the  power,  and  the  “controlling  authority” 
of  Congress,  there  could  be,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Court, 
no  doubt  whatever. 

Since  the  announcement  of  this  decision,  parties  inter- 
ested in  the  acquirement  of  Indian  lands  in  various  parts 
of  the  West  have  been  urging  Congress  to  throw  open 
Indian  reservations  to  settlement,  not  “from  considera- 
tions of  governmental  policy,”  but  simply  because  they — 
the  interested  parties — want  the  lands.  Two  bills  pro- 
viding for  the  opening  up  and  settlement  of  parts  of  Indian 
reservations  have  come  before  the  present  Congress;  and 
inasmuch  as  this  is  the  first  time  that  the  legislative  branch 
of  the  Government  has  attempted  to  exercise  its  power 
under  the  Lone  Wolf  decision,  and  to  take  away  Indian 
lands  without  Indian  consent,  it  seems  worth  while  to 
review  the  bills  and  ascertain  whether  they  are  consistent 
with  the  “perfect  good  faith  to  the  Indians”  which  the 
Court  assumed  that  Congress  would  observe. 

The  first  measure  (H.  R.  10,418)  is  entitled  “An  Act  to 
ratify  and  amend  an  agreement  with  the  Sioux  tribe  of 
Indians  of  the  Rosebud  Reservation,  in  South  Dakota.” 
The  clear  implication  of  the  title  is  that  the  main  provi- 
sions of  the  bill,  at  least,  have  been  submitted  to  the  Rose- 


4 


bud  Sioux  and  have  received  their  approval  and  assent; 
but  the  accompanying  report  of  the  Indian  Office  shows 
that  such  is  by  no  means  the  case.  The  attempt  that  was 
made  by  Inspector  McLaughlin  to  get  the  Indians  to  agree 
to  surrender  their  lands  completely  failed,  and  Commis- 
sioner Jones  frankly  admits  that  “the  bill  . . . pro- 

poses to  open  the  surplus  lands  of  the  Rosebud  Indians, 
situated  in  Gregory  County,  for  public  settlement,  and 
dispose  of  the  same  without  the  consent  of  the  Indians  to 
the  terms  thereof.”  The  bill,  therefore,  should  have  been 
entitled  “An  Act  to  seize  all  the  lands  of  the  Rosebud 
Indians  in  Gregory  County,  South  Dakota,  and  to  sell  the 
same  to  settlers,  under  the  homestead  laws,  without  the 
Indians’  consent  and  at  the  prices  herein  fixed.”  That 
would  have  been  an  honest  title,  while  the  other  is  mis- 
leading and  deceptive. 

An  examination  of  the  bill,  and  an  investigation  of  the 
matters  to  which  it  relates,  seem  to  show  that  it  is  as 
unfair  in  intent  as  it  is  deceptive  in  title.  It  provides 
that  all  the  lands  of  the  Rosebud  Sioux  in  Gregory  Coimty,. 
South  Dakota,  amounting  in  the  aggregate  to  416,000 
acres,  shall  be  taken  from  them  without  their  consent,  and 
shall  be  sold  to  settlers  under  the  homestead  laws  at  the 
“flat”  price  of  three  dollars  per  acre.  The  Government 
does  not  pay  for  the  lands,  nor  guarantee  payment;  but 
acts  merely  as  trustee,  and  promises  to  credit  the  Indians 
with  the  proceeds  of  the  sale.  The  settlers  who  take  the 
lands  are  allowed  five  years  in  which  to  complete  the  pur- 
chase, the  annual  payments  being  fixed  at  fifty  cents  per 
acre,  without  interest. 

The  question  whether  the  Government,  in  this  bill,  is 
dealing  honorably  and  justly  with  its  Indian  wards,  or  not, 
depends  upon  the  actual  value  of  the  land  that  it  takes 
from  them  and  sells  on  their  account.  If  the  land  is 
worth  $5  an  acre  in  the  open  market  and  the  Government 
sells  it  for  $3,  it  manifestly  acts  unjustly,  because  its  duty, 
as  guardian  or  trustee,  is  to  protect  the  interests  of  its 
dependent  wards,  and  get  as  much  for  their  property  as 


5 


possible.  If  a large  part  of  the  land  is  worth  $25  or  $30  per 
acre,  and  the  Government  sells  it  for  $3,  it  commits  a gross 
breach  of  trust,  amounting,  in  effect,  to  wholesale  robbery. 

That  much  of  the  Gregory  County  land  of  the  Rosebud 
Sioux  is  worth  $25  or  $30  per  acre,  and  that  the  whole 
tract  to  be  thrown  open  to  settlement  would  bring  an 
average  price  of  $10  per  acre,  there  seems  to  be  no  doubt 
whatever.  Mr.  Joseph  D.  Keller,  of  the  real  estate  firm 
of  Rathman  & Keller,  of  Bonesteel,  South  Dakota,  says: 
“There  are  416,000  acres  of  land  on  the  reservation  to 
be  opened.  Most  of  it  is  fine  land.  Not  a mile  and  a 
half  from  the  reservation  boundary,  the  other  day,  we  sold 
a quarter  section  to  a Pierson,  Iowa,  man  for  $5000” 
($31  per  acre). 

The  C.  A.  Johnson  Realty  Company,  of  Bonesteel  and 
Fairfax,  South  Dakota,  replying  under  date  of  January  26, 
1904,  to  a customer’s  inquiry  with  regard  to  the  value  of 
land  in  Gregory  County,  said  that  grazing  land  was  worth 
$7  per  acre,  and  farming  land  $25  to  $40. 

Edwin  M.  Starcher,  of  Fairfax,  South  Dakota — another 
dealer  in  real  estate — replied  to  a similar  inquiry  by  saying 
that  “the  average  price  of  grazing  land  in  this  country 
runs  from  $5  to  $10  per  acre.  Improved  farms  from  $25 
to  $40.’’ 

Rev.  A.  B.  Clark,  of  Rosebud,  South  Dakota,  writes 
that  the  reservation  land  in  Gregory  County  is  worth  $10 
per  acre  on  an  average.  “Adjoining  tracts,’’  he  says, 
“sell  for  $30  per  acre,  and  the  heirs  of  a Gregory  County 
allottee  have  a standing  offer  of  $6000  for  one  section 
lying  partly  in  the  bluffs  of  the  Missouri.  All  this  tract 
of  (Indian)  land  lies  within  the  belt  of  regular  rainfall 
and  regular  crops,  and  it  is  no  wonder  that  some  news- 
papers stated,  last  summer,  that  the  price  was  to  be  $20 
per  acre.  Local  editors  said  that  while  the  land  was  worth 
that  price,  the  Indians  would  get  only  $2.50  for  it.’’ 

Indian  Commissioner  Jones  himself  says,  in  his  report 
on  this  bill,  that  “a  considerable  portion  of  these  lands 
is  worth  perhaps  two  or  three  times  the  amount  proposed 


6 


to  be  charged  homestead  settlers  therefor.”  Privately,  he 
has  admitted  that  if  the  whole  tract  were  ofiEered  at  com- 
petitive sale,  it  would  undoubtedly  bring  an  average  price 
of  $io  per  acre.  ************* 
From  the  facts  above  set  forth  it  clearly  appears  that 
the  first  time  Congress  attempted  to  avail  itself  of  the 
power  given  to  it  by  the  Lone  Wolf  decision — a power 
which  the  Court  expected  it  to  exercise  ‘‘with  perfect  good 
faith  to  the  Indians” — it  tried  to  take  away  from  the  latter 
at  a price  of  $3  per  acre  lands  that  were  "worth  at  least 
$10,  and  thus  to  deprive  them  of  about  $3,000,000  to  which 
they  were  equitably  entitled.  =t=**H:**** 
The  case  has  now  been  brought  to  the  attention  of  the 
President;  and  inasmuch  as  he  has  always  shown  a dis- 
position to  give  the  Indians  ‘‘a  square  deal,”  there  is  some 
reason  to  hope  that  when  the  Rosebud  lands  are  thrown 
open  to  settlement,  they  will  be  offered  at  public  com- 
petitive sale,  instead  of  at  a “flat”  price,  and  will  thus 
bring  their  full  market  value. 

The  other  Indian  land  bill  that  has  come  before  the 
present  Congress  (S.  1,490),  and  that  has  passed  both 
Houses,  is  entitled  ‘‘An  Act  to  authorize  the  sale  of  a 
part  of  what  is  known  as  the  Red  Lake  Indian  Reservation 
in  the  State  of  Minnesota.”  This  bill  purports  to  be  based 
on  an  agreement  made  with  the  Red  Lake  Indians  by 
Inspector  McLaughlin  in  March,  1902;  but  inasmuch  as 
the  terms  of  the  agreement  do  not  correspond  with  the 
provisions  of  the  bill,  this  legislation  also  must  be  regarded 
as  a taking  of  Indian  lands  without  Indian  consent.  On 
its  face,  this  bill  seems  to  provide  for  a competitive  sale, 
with  allotment  of  the  lands  to  the  highest  bidders;  but  it 
contains  a proviso  that  ‘‘after  the  first”  (competitive) 
‘‘sale  hereunder  shall  be  closed,  the  lands  remaining  unsold 
shall  be  subject  to  sale  and  entry”  (under  the  homestead 
laws)  ‘‘at  the  price  of  four  dollars  per  acre.”  The  objec- 
tionable feature  of  this  bill  is  its  intentional  or  accidental 
ambiguity.  Instead  of  saying  that  the  lands  shall  be 
offered  at  competitive  sale  for  a period  of  six  months,  or 


7 


one  year,  and  that  thereafter  all  land  unsold  shall  be  sub- 
ject to  sale  and  entry  at  the  “flat”  price  of  $4  per  acre,  it 
seems  to  provide  for  an  allotment  of  the  lands  at  $4  ajter 
the  first  sale.  It  is  perfectly  obvious  that  if  lands  worth 
$10  to  $20  an  acre  are  put  up  at  auction  for  a single  day, 
and  if  those  same  lands  can  be  obtained  on  the  following 
day  for  $4  “flat,”  few  people  will  bid  at  the  “first  sale.” 
The  effect  of  the  bill,  therefore,  may  be  to  give  the  whole 
tract  of  256,000  acres  to  settlers  at  the  “flat”  rate,  when,  if 
it  were  disposed  of  by  means  of  competitive  sales,  ad- 
journed and  continued  from  time  to  time  at  the  discretion 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  the  whole  tract  would 
bring  its  actual  market  value.  This  bill  also  has  been 
brought  to  the  attention  of  the  President,  and  his  action 
upon  it  may  perhaps  depend  upon  the  opinion  of  the  law 
officers  of  the  Government  as  to  its  real  meaning  and 
effect.  If  its  object  be  honestly  to  continue  the  com- 
petitive sales  from  time  to  time,  so  as  to  sell  to  the  highest 
bidders  all  the  land  that  the  market  will  take  in  that  way, 
it  is  unobjectionable;  but  its  extraordinary  ambiguity 
throws  a shadow  of  suspicion  upon  its  intent.  If  its 
effect  should  be  to  throw  the  lands — or  the  bulk  of  them 
— open  to  settlement  at  $4  per  acre,  it  would  deprive  the 
Red  Lake  Indians  of  about  $1,500,000  to  which  they  are 
justly  entitled.  Neither  of  these  two  bills  should  have 
been  approved  by  the  Indian  Office  and  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior.  One  of  them  was  evidently  intended  to  take 
a large  tract  of  land  away  from  the  Indians  without 
giving  them  adequate  compensation,  while  the  other 
was  so  loosely  drawn  as  to  leave  room  for  a construction 
that  would  work  great  injustice. 

Now  that  the  Supreme  Court  has  virtually  given  Con- 
gress full  power  to  take  Indian  lands  without  the  Indians’ 
consent,  attempts  will  undoubtedly  be  made  in  all  parts 
of  the  West  to  get  possession  of  desirable  Indian  reserva- 
tions; and  it  is  important  that  the  Government — including 
Congress,  the  President,  and  the  Interior  Department — 
should  decide  upon  some  definite  and  consistent  method 


8 


of  disposing  of  such  Indian  lands  as  it  is  thought  best  to 
throw  open  to  settlement.  The  Indians  have  a right  to 
get,  and  the  Government,  as  their  guardian,  is  bound  to  see 
that  they  do  get,  the  highest  market  value  of  the  lands 
that  they  are  forced  to  give  up;  and  the  only  equitable 
way  in  which  that  value  can  be  ascertained  is  by  means 
of  public  competitive  sale  to  the  highest  bidders.  The 
Interior  Department  has  already  adopted  this  method  in 
dealing  with  inherited  Indian  lands  in  the  Indian  Territory, 
and  the  results  have  been  in  every  way  satisfactory.  One 
lot  of  Creek  land,  for  example,  near  the  town  of  Eufala, 
which  was  appraised  at  $800,  recently  brought,  at  com- 
petitive sale,  ^3500.  Another  lot,  which  was  appraised  at 
$1500,  attracted  nine  bidders  and  was  bought  at  $2540. 
If  these  lands  had  been  sold  at  their  appraised  value,  or  at 
a “ flat  ” price  fixed  by  Congress,  their  Indian  owners  would 
not  have  received  anything  like  the  amounts  that  the 
lands  were  really  worth. 

Since  the  Supreme  Court  has  deprived  the  Indians  of 
the  right,  which  they  formerly  had,  to  protect  themselves 
by  refusing  to  sell  their  reservations,  and  has  turned  them 
into  helpless  and  dependent  wards  of  the  Nation,  the 
Government  is  bound,  by  every  consideration  of  honor 
and  equity,  to  protect  them  from  exploitation,  and  to  deal 
with  their  property  precisely  as  a shrewd  and  honest 
guardian  would  deal  with  the  property  of  a minor  ward. 
It  is  to  be  hoped,  therefore,  that  the  President  will  instruct 
the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  not  to  approve,  hereafter, 
any  bill  for  the  opening  of  an  Indian  reservation  that  does 
not  provide  for  a competitive  sale  of  the  lands  to  the 
highest  bidders. 

But  the  moral  obligation  which  the  Government  is 
under  to  protect  the  interests  of  its  Indian  wards  is  not 
the  only  duty  that  it  has  in  connection  with  Indian  lands. 
It  is  equally  bound  to  relieve  and  protect  all  of  its  citizens 
from  unnecessary  taxation  for  Indian  education  and 
support.  If  the  sale  of  Indian  lands  at  their  full  market 
value  would  go  a long  way  toward  meeting  the  expenses 


9 


of  the  Indian  administration,  the  people  of  the  United 
States  have  a right  to  ask  that  they  be  relieved  from 
taxation  for  that  purpose  to  just  that  extent.  It  is  not 
fair  to  take  out  of  the  United  States  Treasury,  by  means 
of  an  Indian  appropriation  bill,  money  that  might  just  as 
well  be  got  out  of  the  Indian  lands  that  are  thrown  open 
to  settlement,  if  such  lands  were  sold  to  the  highest  bidders 
at  competitive  sale.  If  the  lands  of  the  Rosebud  and 
Red  Lake  Indians  in  South  Dakota  and  Minnesota  sell 
for  their  full  market  value  when  they  are  thrown  open  to 
settlement,  they  will  probably  bring  $4,500,000  more 
than  they  would  if  disposed  of  at  the  flat  prices  of  $3 
and  $4  per  acre  specified  in  these  two  bills,  and  will  con- 
sequently relieve  the  people  of  the  United  States  from 
taxation  for  Indian  support  and  education  to  just  that 
amount. 


lO 


[Fifty-eighth  Congress,  Second  Session,  Senate  Document  No.  158.] 

ROSEBUD  INDIANS  OF  SOUTH  DAKOTA. 

Mr.  Cockrell  presented  the  following  “Memorial  of  the 
Indian  Rights  Association,  on  behalf  of  the  Rosebud 
Indians  of  South  Dakota,  Relating  to  the  Proposed  Sale 
of  416,000  Acres  of  the  Lands  of  their  Reservation.’’ 

February  15,  1904,  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Indian 
Affairs  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

Agency  of  the  Indian  Rights  Association, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  February  15,  1904. 

A memorial  of  the  Indian  Rights  Association  on  behalf  of  the 
Rosebud  Indians,  of  South  Dakota,  relating  to  the  pro- 
posed sale  of  416,000  acres  of  the  lands  of  their  reserva- 
tion, showing  that  in  fairness  and  good  conscience  the  price 
proposed  to  be  paid  them  by  the  bill  H.  R.  10418  w inade- 
quate, and  petitioning  that  justice  may  prevail. 

To  the  Congress  of  the  United  States: 

On  behalf  of  the  Rosebud  tribe  or  band  of  Sioux  Indians, 
of  Rosebud  Reservation,  S.  Dak.,  and  at  their  request,  we 
appeal  for  a hearing  of  the  claims  of  these  Indians;  that 
they  will  suffer  great  injustice  if  the  bill  H.  R.  10418,  now 
pending  before  the  Senate,  be  enacted  into  law. 

Briefly,  the  bill  proposes  to  dispose  of  416,000  acres 
of  the  Rosebud  Indian  lands  lying  in  Gregory  County, 
S.  Dak.,  without  Indian  consent,  at  prices  ranging  from  $3 
per  acre  downward,  according  to  date  of  purchase,  etc., 
the  Government  acting  only  as  trustee  for  the  Indians, 
especially  providing  that  it  does  not  guarantee  any  part 
of  the  purchase  price. 

The  bill  sets  up  an  agreement  secured  from  the  Indians 
in  1901,  wherein  the  latter  were  guaranteed  $1,040,000  for 
these  lands  by  the  Government  (being  $2.50  per  acre). 

The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  while  deciding 
(Lone  Wolf  case,  October  term,  1902)  that  Congress  was 


vested  with  authority  to  disregard  treaties  made  with  our 
Indian  tribes,  presupposes  that  in  our  dealings  with  the 
Indians  absolute  justice  will  be  done  them.  The  Court 
says: 

The  power  exists  to  abrogate  the  provisions  of  an  Indian  treaty, 
though  presumably  such  power  will  be  exercised  only  when  cir- 
cumstances arise  which  will  not  only  justify  the  Government  in 
disregarding  the  stipulations  of  the  treat3^  but  may  demand,  in 
the  interest  of  the  Government  and  the  Indians  themselves,  that 
it  should  do  so.  * * * It  was  never  doubted  that  the  power 

to  abrogate  existed  in  Congress,  and  that  in  a contingency  such 
power  might  be  availed  of  from  considerations  of  governmental 
policy,  particularly  if  consistent  with  perfect  good  faith  toward  the 
Indians. 

We  must  presume  that  Congress  acted  in  perfect  good  faith  in 
the  dealings  with  the  Indians,  * * * and  that  the  legislative 

branch  of  the  Government  exerci.sed  its  best  judgment  in  the 
premises. 

The  Congress  having  assumed  absolute  control,  by  guar- 
dianship, of  the  Indians,  it  must  accept  the  added  responsi- 
bility of  providing  for  absolute  justice  to  these  w-ards. 

If  an  obligation  of  the  Government  entered  into  with  the 
Indians  may  be  broken  at  will  by  reason  of  incapacity  of 
the  ward,  we  can  not  in  justice  nor  good  conscience  hold 
the  ward  to  an  admission  in  a former  agreement  as  to  the 
value  of  lands.  Furthermore,  the  agreement  set  up  in 
the  bill  is  alleged  to  have  been  secured  through  strenuous 
effort.  The  Indians  claim  they  were  given  to  understand 
that  the  Government  w'ould  take  their  lands  anyway  at 
the  Government  price,  S1.25  per  acre,  if  they  did  not  agree 
to  accept  $2. 50  per  acre. 

As  already  stated,  it  is  not  necessary  to  dwell  upon  the 
history  surrounding  the  agreement  of  1901.  Congress  pro- 
poses to  disregard  it  in  important  particulars  by  withdraw- 
ing its  guaranty  of  payment  of  the  purchase  money,  and 
resolving  the  Indians  to  the  uncertain  payment  of  settlers 
upon  the  lands,  who,  upon  becoming  delinquent,  usually 
appeal  to  Congress  for  extension  of  the  time  of  payment, 
and  indeed  for  the  remission  of  the  debt.  This  plan  in 


the  past  has  been  found  to  result  sometimes  in  frittering 
away  the  Indian  estate. 

In  brief,  the  agreements  are  held  not  to  be  binding  upon 
the  Government,  and  therefore  the  Indians,  as  the  other 
contracting  party,  are  fully  released. 

To  set  up  the  agreement  of  the  Indian  tribe,  therefore, 
in  the  bill  is  useless  and  can  not  be  otherwise  than  mis- 
leading. The  question  resolves  itself  to  this:  What  is  the 
actual  value  of  the  land  proposed  to  be  sold  by  the  guardian 
Government  ? 

Reuben  Quickbear,  president  of  the  Rosebud  Indian 
Council,  writes  as  follows: 

Rosebud,  S.  Dak.,  January  i8,  1904. 

Dear  Sir:  I suppose  you  know  that  Mr.  Burke’s  bill  taking  our 
Gregory  County  land  without  our  consent  and  at  a merely  nominal 
price  is  now  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Sherman,  chairman  of  the  House 
Committee  on  Indian  Affairs. 

If  ever  we  needed  help  we  need  it  now,  and  badly.  Mr.  Clark, 
the  Episcopal  missionary  here,  has  written  to  Mr.  Sherman  pro- 
testing against  the  amount  offered — or  rather  thrust  at  us — for  the 
land.  He  has  been  here  for  years  and  knows  the  value  of  it.  A 
real  estate  man  recently  went  over  it  and  told  a friend  of  mine  that 
he  would  gladly  give  $10  an  acre  for  the  whole  tract,  and  could 
raise  the  money  in  three  weeks.  Over  a year  ago  a syndicate 
offered  the  Commissioner  $5  per  acre  for  the  whole  tract,  and  land 
around  here  has  since  doubled  in  value.  We  only  ask  $5  per  acre. 

We  call  on  the  Indian  Rights  Association  to  help  us  in  this  our 
hour  of  need,  and  ask  you  to  protest  to  Mr.  Sherman  against  the 
passage  of  this  unjust  bill. 

Ask  that  three  men  be  appointed  to  value  the  land — one  to  be 
appointed  by  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs,  one  by  the 
Indians,  and  these  two  to  select  a third,  as  was  done  when  the 
Omaha  Reservation  was  valued  }^ears  ago.  If  this  proposal  is 
entertained  the  South  Dakota  delegation  will  at  once  consent  to 
$5  per  acre,  as  they  well  know  that  any  halfway  fair  valuation 
would  be  far  more  than  that.  A shyster  lawyer  named  Backus  is 
in  Washington  stating  that  our  land  is  not  worth  more  than  $2.50 
per  acre.  He  lives  in  Bonesteel,  in  Gregory  County,  and  has  been 
sent  by  the  people  there  to  help  beat  us  in  this  land  deal. 

Yours,  truly,  Reuben  Quick  Bear, 

President  of  the  Indian  Council. 

Mr.  Herbert  Welsh,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


13 


As  shown  by  the  report  (dated  January  9,  1904)  of  the 
honorable  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs,  on  the  bill  in 
question,  the  Indians  were  not  satisfied  with  the  price 
offered  them.  He  states: 

When  the  agreement  of  September  14,  1901 , was  being  concluded, 
the  Indians  argued  with  great  persistency  that  their  lands  were 
worth  more  than  $2.50  per  acre,  and  they  were  almost  unanimous 
in  declaring  that  they  were  well  worth  $5  per  acre.  Since  that 
time  several  petitions  have  been  received  from  the  Rosebud  Indians 
earnestly  protesting  against  the  ratification  of  said  agreement 
because  of  the  inadequacy  of  the  compensation.  Letters  from 
outsiders  and  apparently  disinterested  parties  were  also  received 
indicating  that  the  lands  w^ere  worth  a considerably  larger  price 
than  that  agreed  to  be  paid.  In  fact  one  offer  was  made  by  parties 
to  take  all  the  lands  covered  by  the  cession  at  the  rate  of  $5  per 
acre.  On  this  point  the  Office  seems  warranted  in  saying  that 
from  the  best  information  it  has  been  able  to  obtain  a considerable 
portion  of  these  lands  is  worth  perhaps  two  or  three  times  the 
amount  proposed  to  be  charged  to  homestead  settlers  therefor, 
and  that  no  doubt  the  entire  tract  taken  as  a whole,  exclusive  of 
allotments,  is  worth  considerably  more  than  $2.50  per  acre. 

The  Sioux  City  Journal  (Sioux  City,  Iowa)  of  July  2, 
1903,  regards  the  tract  as  comprising  fine  lands,  and 
says: 

ROSEBUD  OPENING  DUE  SOON MAJOR  m’lAUGHLIN  ABOUT  TO  MAKE 

TREATY  WITH  INDIANS APPOINTMENT  FOR  J.  D.  KELLER FORMER 

SUPERINTENDENT  OF  SCHOOLS  OF  WOODBURY  COUNTY  MADE 

UNITED  STATES  COMMISSIONER  AT  BONESTEEL.  S.  DAK. TO  TAKE 

ACTION  NEXT  SESSION. 

Persons  who  have  been  interested  in  the  opening  of  the  Rosebud 
Indian  Reservation  in  South  Dakota  will  be  encouraged  by  the 
news  that  the  reservation  will  almost  without  question  be  thrown 
open  to  settlement  after  the  next  session  of  Congress. 

Such  action  will  be  made  possible  by  a new  treaty  with  the 
Indians,'which  is  to  be  made  by  Maj,  James  McLaughlin,  of  the  In- 
dian Department,  Washington,  D.C.,  who  was  in  Sioux  City  this 
week,  en  route  from  Washington  to  North  Dakota  on  business  with 
the  Indians. 

The  news  of  the  new  treaty  was  brought  to  Sioux  City  by  Joseph 
D.  Keller,  of  Bonesteel,  S.  Dak.,  of  the  real  estate  firm  of  Rathman 
& Keller,  w'ho  is  here  for  a brief  visit  with  friends. 

Mr.  Keller  formerly  was  county  superintendent  of  schools  for 


14 


Woodbury  County.  Fourteen  months  ago  he  left  Sioux  City  for 
Bonesteel,  and  has  been  doing  well  there. 

“Major  McLaughlin  is  now  in  North  Dakota,  attending  a pow- 
wow of  the  Indians,  with  whom  he  has  a strong  friendship  all  over 
the  Northwest.  He  is  to  go  to  the  Rosebud  Reservation  in  South 
Dakota  and  meet  the  Indians  there.  This  is  the  primary  object 
of  his  trip  west,’  ’ according  to  a letter  which  Congressman  Burke,  of 
South  Dakota,  has  received  from  Commissioner  Jones,  of  the  Indian 
Bureau. 

“There  are  416,000  acres  of  land  on  the  reservation  to  be  opened. 
Most  of  it  is  fine  land.  Not  a mile  and  a half  from  the  reservation 
boundary  the  other  day  we  sold  a quarter  section  to  a Pierson, 
Iowa,  man  for  $5,000.  So  you  see  the  land  is  not  bad.  There  will 
be  2,600  quarter  sections  to  be  allotted  to  settlers  when  the  reser- 
vation is  opened.  We  have  received  frequent  inquiries  about  the 
land  from  all  over  the  country. 

“You  see,  Congress  balked  on  the  deal  because  it  would  neces- 
sitate an  appropriation  of  $1,500,000  to  buy  the  land  from  the  In- 
dians, and  the  purpose  of  the  new  treaty  will  be  to  make  a deal  by 
which  the  Indians  will  wait  a certain  length  of  time  for  their  money, 
which  the  settlers  will  pay  in  in  proving  up,  instead  of  looking  to 
the  Government  for  it.” 

Mr.  Keller  has  just  been  appointed  United  States  commissioner 
at  Bonesteel,  his  jurisdiction  extending  over  Gregory  County  and 
a large  stretch  of  country  west  of  that  county.  By  virtue  of  his 
official  position  he  probably  will  be  given  charge  of  the  drawing  by 
settlers  for  the  Rosebud  lands  when  the  reservation  is  opened. 

Bonesteel,  S.  D.,  lies  on  the  border  of  the  Indian  lands 
referred  to.  A circular  issued  by  a Bonesteel  land  com- 
pany shows  conclusively  their  opinion  as  to  the  value  of 
lands  in  that  section  of  the  country.  It  read  as  follows ; 

Rosebud  Indian  Reservation. 

Four  hundred  and  sixteen  thousand  acres  of  choice  lands  to  be 
thrown  open  to  settlement  under  the  homestead  laws. 

While  the  date  has  not  been  determined  definitely,  it  is  generally 
conceded  by  those  in  a position  to  know,  that  the  drawing  will  be 
held  in  Bonesteel  in  the  early  summer  of  1904. 

Those  wishing  full  information  should  send  50  cents  for  large 
sectional  map  showing  entire  county,  also  names  of  all  allottees. 

Briefly  stated,  Gregory  County  is  one  of  the  best  in  the  State 
of  South  Dakota,  because — 

First.  The  soil  is  heavier. 

Second.  The  water  is  better. 


15 


Third.  There  is  no  surface  stone. 

Fourth.  The  rainfall  is  heavier. 

Fifth.  There  has  never  been  a failure  of  crops. 

Sixth.  Timothy  and  clover  grow  well  here. 

Seventh.  This  section  of  country  is  better  adapted  to  the  rais- 
ing of  hogs  and  cattle,  as  com  yields  well  each  year. 

Eighth.  Land  values  are  steadily  advancing. 

Ninth.  The  prospect  for  a bounteous  harvest  was  never  better 
in  any  country. 

Tenth.  We  are  in  direct  communication  with  both  the  Sioux 
City  and  Omaha  markets. 

Read  descriptions  and  prices  of  land: 

18.  Ninety  acres,  choice  farm  land,  34  miles  from  town;  frame 
house  and  good  well.  Price,  S35  per  acre. 

19.  One  hundred  and  sixty  acres,  2^  miles  from  town;  good 
house,  all  fenced,  140  acres  in  crop.  Price,  $26  per  acre. 

20.  One  hundred  and  sixty  acres,  10  miles  from  town;  100 
acres  in  crop,  all  fenced.  Price,  S26  per  acre. 

21.  One  hundred  and  sixty  acres,  7 miles  from  county  seat; 
135  acres  in  cultivation.  Price,  $3 2 per  acre. 

22.  One  hundred  and  sixty  acres,  2J  miles  from  town;  good 
farm  land;  120  acres  in  crop,  all  fenced;  good  well,  18  feet  deep. 
Cheap  at  $35  per  acre. 

23.  Three  hundred  and  twenty  acres,  li  miles  from  town; 
250  acres  in  cultivation.  Seven-room  house,  large,  two-story 
bam.  Price,  $3 6 per  acre. 

24.  Three  hundred  and  twenty  acres,  3J  miles  from  town; 
good  soil  and  water;  hay  meadow  cuts  70  tons  per  year;  210  acres 
in  crop.  Price,  S3 3 per  acre. 

25.  One  hundred  and  sixtj*  acres,  2^  miles  from  town;  slightly 
rolling,  but  all  good,  tillable  land;  80  acres  cultivated.  Price, 
S19.50  per  acre. 

26.  Three  hundred  and  twenty  acres  choice^creek  land,  suitable 
for  stock  raising,  9 miles  from  town.  Price,  $20  per  acre. 

27.  Two  hundred  and  fifty  acres,  5 miles  from  town;  180  in 
crop,  good  well  and  stock  pond,  frame  house,  all  fenced,  one  of  our 
best.  Price,  S26  per  acre. 

28.  Stock  ranch  consisting  of  2,355  acres  deeded  land  and  640 
acres  of  school  land  in  a body,  three  streams  of  never-failing  water, 
three  windmills  and  tanks,  buildings  suitable  for  handling  all  kind 
of  stock,  40  miles  of  fence.  For  particulars  write  us. 

'29.  Four  hundred  and  eighty  acres,  6 miles  from  town;  well 
watered  and  all  fenced.  Price  $20  per  acre. 

30.  Three  hundred  and  twenty  acres,  i mile  from  town;  abun- 


i6 


dance  of  good  spring  water,  excellent  for  pastiire.  Price,  $16.50 
per  acre. 

31.  One  hundred  and  sixty  acres,  almost  adjoining  town; 
well  improved,  undoubtedly  the  best  farm  in  Gregory  County. 
Price,  $52  per  acre. 

32.  Six  hundred  and  forty  acres,  3 miles  from  town;  320  acres 
choice  cultivated  land,  balance  pasture,  all  fenced,  plenty  of  good 
springs.  Price,  $26  per  acre. 

33.  One  hundred  acres,  3 miles  from  town;  120  acres  in  crop, 
40  acres  pasture,  plenty  of  water.  Price,  $31  per  acre. 

34.  Three  hundred  and  twenty  acres  rough  land  suitable  for 
pasture,  on  the  Whetstone  Creek.  This  is  a snap  at  $7.50  per  acre. 
(Sold.) 

35.  Three  hundred  and  twenty  acres,  4 miles  from  town; 
70  acres  can  be  broken,  balance  pasture  land.  School  section 
adjoining  leased  for  four  years.  Price,  $3,200. 

36.  One  thousand  six  hundred  acre  stock  ranch,  improved 
and  well  watered;  will  sell  cheap  or  take  in  part  payment  improved 
farm  or  stock  of  goods.  For  particulars  and  prices  write  us. 

37.  One  hundred  and  sixty  acres,  4 miles  from  town;  140  acres 
in  crop,  20  acres  pasture,  no  waste  land.  A great  bargain  at  $29 
per  acre.  (Sold.) 

38.  One  hundred  and  sixty  acres,  fine  farm  with  good  well  of 
water;  no  acres  in  crop,  only  ij  miles  from  town,  only  $32.50 
per  acre.  (Sold.) 

39.  One  hundred  and  sixty  acres,  i mile  from  town;  plenty  of 
water,  frame  house,  80  acres  in  crop.  Price,  $6,000.  (Sold  April, 

1903. 

A recent  issue  of  the  Sioux  Falls  Press,  Sioux  Falls, 
S.  Dak.,  has  this  to  say  of  the  pending  bill: 

burke’s  rosebud  bill. 

Representative  Burke,  of  South  Dakota,  favors  the  Press  with 
a copy  of  his  bill  for  the  cession  of  a portion  of  the  Rosebud  Indian 
Reservation  in  this  State,  and  his  report  thereon  from  the  House 
Committee  on  Indian  Affairs. 

This  is  a measure  the  Press  has  criticised  in  one  particular — 
that  the  price  per  acre  to  the  Indian  owners  of  the  land  was  not 
enough.  In  Mr.  Burke’s  new  bill  the  price  is  increased  from 
$2.50  to  $3  per  acre  for  all  the  land  entered  within  six  months  after 
the  opening  of  the  reservation,  the  price  thereafter  to  be  reduced  to 
$2.50  per  acre. 

It  is  probable  that  all  the  land  to  be  surrendered  will  be  taken 
by  settlers  long  before  the  first  half  year  has  expired,  as  there  is 


17 


nowhere  in  South  Dakota  land  more  desirable  than  in  this  tract. 
So  the  new  bill  will  give  the  Indians  a couple  of  htindred  thousand 
dollars  more  than  was  contemplated  in  his  original  measure. 

When  the  inspector  visited  the  Indians  last  summer  to  procure 
their  consent  to  the  sale  of  the  land,  they  demanded  $5  per  acre 
and  refused  to  sign  in  sufficient  numbers  an  agreement  for  its  sale 
for  anything  less  than  that  sum. 

In  the  absence  of  the  agreement[it  was  expected  at  that  time 
to  procure  from  the  Indians  Mr.  Burke  has  incorporated  in  his  bill 
a previous  agreement  made  with  the  Indians  in  September,  1901, 
in  which  they  then  consented  to  the  sale  of  the  property  at  $2.50 
per  acre.  This  agreement  was  before  the  last  Congress,  and  it 
failed  to  secure  ratification,  the  managers  of  the  House  declining 
to  consider  it. 

The  Indians  are  not  at  all  exorbitant  in  their  demand  for  $$ 
per  acre.  The  land  is  worth  more  than  that.  A like  measure, 
introduced  by  Representative  Marshall,  to  provide  for  the  opening 
of  the  Devils  Lake  (N.  Dak.)  Indian  Reservation,  is  before  the 
House.  In  the  Indian  committee  it  has  been  so  amended  as  to 
provide  that  the  price  of  the  land  shall  be  $4.50  per  acre  during  the 
first  six  months,  $3.50  for  che  second  six  months,  and  $2.50  there- 
after. The  Rosebud  land  is  even  more  valuable  than  the  Devils 
Lake  land,  being  in  a section  adapted  to  mixed  farming. 


The  C.  A.  Johnson  Realty  Company,  of  Bonesteel  and 
Fairfax,  S.  D.,  have  expressed  themselves  regarding 
values,  claiming  grazing  lands  are  worth  $7  and  farm 
lands  from  $25  to  $40  per  acre  in  their  section,  which  is 
adjoining  the  Indian  lands  of  the  Rosebud  Reservation. 
Their  statements  follow: 


January  23,  1904. 


Dear  Sir:  As  it  is  probable  that  the  Indian  lands  in  Gregory 
Coimty  will  be  open  to  settlement  soon,  we  are  thinking  of  investing 
some  money  in  the  lands  in  that  country. 

What  will  the  average  price  of  farm  lands  be  ? I have  a friend 
who  would  like  to  purchase  about  3,000  acres  of  grazing  land. 

Could  he  get  that  much  in  a body;  and  if  so,  what  would  be 
the  price? 

We  will  inclose  a stamped  envelope  and  will  be  pleased  to  hear 
from  you  as  early  as  convenient. 

Respectfully, 


C.  W.  Beggs,  Sons  & Co. 


Mr.  C.  a.  Johnson  Realty  Company, 

Bonesteel,  S.  Dak. 


i8 


Fairfax,  S.  Dak.,  January  26,  1904. 

Gentlemen:  Your  esteemed  favor  of  January  23,  1904,  has 
been  received,  and  in  reply  will  say  that  3,000  aeres  of  land  for 
grazing  purposes  can  be  obtained  here  in  this  coimty  for  about  $7 
per  acre.  The  farm  land  is  much  more  valuable  and  higher  priced. 
Farm  land  is  worth  from  $25  to  $40  per  acre. 

The  new  homestead  bill,  which  has  recently  been  introduced  by 
Congressman  Burke,  of  South  Dakota,  provides  for  opening  about 
416,000  acres  of  land  in  that  portion  of  this  country  which  is  yet 
an  Indian  reservation.  This  bill  has  not  beeome  a law  as  yet,  but 
if  it  does  it  will  provide  for  paying  $3  per  acre  for  the  homestead 
as  soon  as  the  land  is  opened  for  entry  and  $2.50  per  acre  if  filed 
upon  after  the  expiration  of  six  months  from  the  date  the  land  is 
opened  for  entry.  The  bill  also  provides  that  after  the  expiration 
of  four  years  from  the  date  the  land  is  opened  for  filing  that  a party 
can  purchase  all  the  land  that  is  vacant  at  that  !time  .that  he  wishes 
subject  to  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  Department  of  the 
Interior. 

Hoping  to  hear  from  you  further  in  this  matter,  I beg  to  remain, 
Yours  truly, 

C.  A.  Johnson  Realty  Company, 

Bonesteel  and  Fairfax,  S.  Dak. 

C.  W.  Beggs,  Sons  & Co.,  Chicago,  III. 

Confirmatory  of  the  above,  the  following  statement  of 
Edwin  M.  Starcher,  of  Fairfax,  S.  Dak.,  is  important: 

January  23,  1904. 

Dear  Sir:  We  have  a party  in  this  city  who  is  desirous  of  secur- 
ing about  3,000  acres  of  land  for  grazing  purposes  in  South  Dakota, 
and  as  we  understand  that  the  land  in  Gregory  County  will  soon 
be  open  for  settlement,  we  would  like  to  know  what  the  average 
price  of  farm  lands  would  be  in  that  section  and  also  if  a 3,000- 
acre  tract  could  be  purchased  by  one  party. 

Thanking  you  kindly  in  advance  for  this  information  and  in- 
closing stamped  envelope  for  a reply,  we  are 

With  respect,  C.  W.  Beggs  Sons  & Co. 

Mr.  E.  M.  Starcher,  Fairfax,  S.  Dak. 

January  27,  1904. 

Gentlemen:  To  your  favor  of  23d  instant  beg  to  say  that  the 
average  price  of  grazing  lands  in  this  country  runs  from  $5  to  $10 
per  aere.  Improved  farms  from  $25  to  $40  per  acre. 

There  are  no  very  large  tracts  of  land  that  could  be  purchased 
here  at  this  time  as  nearly  all  the  land  has  been  homesteaded  or 


19 


preempted  by  settlers  and  usually  is  owned  in  tracts  from  40  to 
320  acres.  The  only  way  one  could  get  3,000  acres  in  a body 
would  be  to  buy  out  several  of  the  holders  who  adjoin  each  other. 
If  we  can  be  of  service  to  you  in  any  way  shall  be  glad  to  do  so. 
No  doubt  we  can  arrange  with  some  of  the  larger  cattle  men  who 
own  adjoining  ranches  to  sell.  Such  a sale  wotdd  probably  range 
approximately  $1,000  per  quarter. 

Yours  truly, 

Edwin  M.  Starcher. 

C.  W.  Beggs  Sons  & Co.,  Chicago,  111. 

Rev.  A.  B.  Clark,  a missionary  among  these  Indians  for 
a score  and  more  years,  believes  that  gross  injustice  will 
be  done  if  the  Indians  are  forced  to  accept  the  valuation 
provided  for  by  the  pending  legislation. 

Extract  from  the  Valentine  Democrat,  Valentine,  Neb., 
issue  of  February  4,  1904; 

The  agent  held  a grand  council  yesterday  (Monday  February  i) 
with  the  Indians  and  the  result  was  that  the  Indians  offered  to 
lease  their  unallotted  land  for  a term  of  years.  On  former  occa- 
sions the  Indians  positively  refused  to  lease,  but  they  feel  so  sore 
at  the  action  of  the  South  Dakota  delegation  in  trying  to  open  their 
Gregory  County  land  at  a nominal  price  that  they  consented  in 
order  that  no  more  of  their  land  could  be  opened  for  several  years 
at  least. 

By  demoralizing  the  Indians  in  the  matter  of  leasing 
we  see  the  immediate  evil  results  that  tend  in  the  wake 
of  attempted  unfair  treatment.  It  has  been  shown  by 
those  observing  the  conditions,  and  is  to  be  inferred  by 
all  experienced  in  Indian  life  in  that  portion  of  the  North- 
west that  it  is  much  better  to  encourage  the  Indians  to 
pasture  their  surplus  lands  with  stock  owned  by  them- 
selves rather  than  to  lease  the  same  to  outsiders. 

The  Indians  have  united  upon  $5  per  acre  as  a com- 
promise price,  although  they  realize  that  the  lands  are 
more  valuable. 

Can  the  Government  afford  to  commit  so  apparent  and 
gross  an  injustice? 

Respectfully  submitted  on  behalf  of  the  Indian  Rights 
Association. 

S.  M.  Brosius, 

Agent  Indian  Rights  Association. 


20 


[From  the  New  York  " Evening  Post.”] 

TAKING  INDIANS’  LANDS. 

DEALING  OF  CONGRESS  WITH  THE  ROSEBUD  SIOUX. 

A Preference  for  the  Methods  of  Counterfeiters  Rather  than  those 
of  Highway  Robbers — Bars  Thrown  Down  by  the  Lone  Wolf 
Decision — Compelling  Indians  to  Accept  $2.50  an  Acre  for 
416,000  Acres  of  Land  Whose  Market  Value  is  at  Least  $5 
an  Acre — Indians  Also  Expected  to  take  their  Chances  of  Col- 
lecting the  Money  of  White  Homesteaders. 

[Special  Dispatch  to  “ The  Evening  Post.”] 

Washington,  Fehmary  lyth. — The  latest  plan  to  take 
away  Indians’  land  and  give  it  to  white  men  has  to  do 
with  the  Rosebud  Sioux  reservation  in  South  Dakota. 
The  Rosebud  Indians  have  some  416,000  acres  in  Gregory 
County  that  the  whites  wish  to  get  at.  In  September, 
1901,  an  inspector,  detailed  for  the  duty,  obtained  from 
the  Indians  an  agreement  to  sell  this  land  at  the  rate  of 
$2.50  an  acre,  $250,000  of  the  proceeds  to  be  expended 
in  the  purchase  of  cattle  for  the  benefit  of  the  Indians,  and 
the  balance  paid  in  cash,  so  much  per  capita,  in  five  annual 
instalments.  A bill  ratifying  this  agreement  and  opening 
the  land  to  settlement  was  presented  to  the  Fifty-seventh 
Congress  by  Secretary  Hitchcock.  Congress  was  too  busy 
with  other  things  and  let  the  bill  die  and  the  agreement 
expire.  But  the  land  brokers  and  intending  homesteaders 
kept  up  a constant  demand  that  the  land  should  be  opened 
to  settlement,  so  the  same  inspector  was  sent  out  again 
last  summer  to  negotiate  a new  agreement. 

Meanwhile  the  Indians,  who  had  always  insisted  that 
their  land  was  worth  more  than  $2.50  an  acre,  had  been 
looking  about  and  taking  note  of  the  value  of  other  lands 
like  theirs  in  character  and  location,  and  therefore  refused 
to  sign  any  agreement  for  less  than  $5.  Meanwhile  also, 
the  Lone  Wolf  decision  had  been  rendered  by  the  United 
States  Supreme  Court,  virtually  declaring  that  the  Indians 
had  no  rights  in  their  reservations  which  Congress  was  not 
at  liberty  to  disregard  at  will.  So  what  did  Congress  do. 


when  the  second  negotiation  failed  to  repeat  the  course  of 
the  first?  Sweep  both  aside,  and  enter  upon  and  sell 
the  land  at  discretion? 

No.  That  would  have  been  the  candid  course,  but 
Congress  did  not  follow  it.  Instead,  it  fell  back  upon  the 
expired  and  obsolete  agreement  of  1901,  revived  it,  made 
certain  changes  in  it  and  proceeded  to  put  through  the 
House  a bill  to  ratify  it  as  altered.  The  agreement  of 
1901  bound  the  Indians  to  accept  $2.50.  Its  revival  indi- 
cates that  Congress  thought  highway  robbery  a less  gentle- 
manly crime  than  counterfeiting. 

The  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs,  whom  the  House 
consulted  before  acting,  though  perfectly  conscious  that 
the  Lone  Wolf  decision  practically  threw  down  all  the  bars 
and  left  Congress  to  do  what  it  pleased,  could  not  forbear 
reminding  the  lawmakers  that  outside  parties  stood  ready 
to  pay  the  Indians  $5  an  acre  for  the  very  same  land  which 
they  were  now  proposing  to  take  away  from  the  poor 
fellows  for  $2.50.  Indeed,  he  adds: 

The  office  seems  warranted  in  saying  that  from  the  best  infor- 
mation it  has  been  able  to  obtain  a considerable  portion  of  these 
lands  is  worth  perhaps  two  or  three  times  the  amount  proposed 
to  be  charged  to  homestead  settlers  therefor,  and  that  no  doubt 
the  entire  tract  taken  as  a whole,  exclusive  of  the  allotments,  is 
worth  considerably  more  than  $2.50  per  acre. 

The  Indians  cannot  see  . . . why  they  should  not  procure 

such  price  for  the  lands  as  settlers  are  willing  to  pay  for  them.  The 
Indians  in  their  talks  have  shown  themselves  to  be  not  unreasonable 
in  their  demands,  but  simply  persisted  in  demanding  what  they 
believed  to  be  just  and  proper.  In  fact,  many  of  the  Indians 
during  the  councils  last  summer  indicated  that  if  the  propositions 
under  consideration  would  guarantee  the  procurements  by  them 
of  as  much  money  as  was  stipulated  for  by  the  agreement  of  Sep- 
tember 14,  1901— f.  e.,  $2.50  an  acre — they  would  not  oppose 
the  same.  They  felt,  however,  that  there  was  no  certainty  that 
they  would  realize  even  $2.50  per  acre  for  the  lands  proposed  to 
be  ceded. 

And  the  Indians  are  quite  justified  in  this  suspicion. 
Even  after  taking  from  them,  at  nominally  $2.50  an  acre, 
416,000  acres  of  land  which,  if  they  were  free^o  do  business 


22 


like  white  people,  the  Indians  could  sell  for  $5  an  acre  at 
least,  Congress  has  no  purpose  of  giving  them  $2.50.  On 
the  contrary — except  for  certain  lands  set  apart  for  edu- 
cational purposes,  for  which  a direct  appropriation  will  be 
made — the  Indians  will  have  to  take  their  chances  of  col- 
lecting their  money  of  the  white  homesteaders  when  and 
how  they  can.  The  homesteaders  are  expected  to  pay 
after  sundry  periods,  but  there  is  no  assurance  that  they 
will  do  so.  Bad  crop  years,  if  any  come,  will  be  used  in 
this  case,  as  they  have  been  in  others  in  the  past,  as  an 
excuse  for  postponing  the  demand  upon  the  settlers;  and 
any  settler  who  becomes  discouraged,  or  is  of  a roving 
spirit  any  way,  can  pull  up  stakes,  abandon  his  claim, 
and  move  away,  defaulting  on  his  final  payment,  and 
leaving  the  Indians  to  whistle  for  their  money. 

That  Congress  is  not  proud  of  its  own  conduct  in  this 
matter  is  shown,  first,  by  its  going  through  the  hollow  form 
of  pretending  to  ratify  an  old  and  obsolete  Indian  agree- 
ment because  it  could  not  procure  a new  and  live  one, 
instead  of  going  ahead  frankly  on  the  lines  indicated  by 
the  Lone  Wolf  decision  and  seizing  the  land  desired  with- 
out any  apology  whatever;  and,  second,  by  its  equally 
hollow  pretence  at  self- justification  in  arguing  that  it  is 
really  trying  to  promote  the  interest  of  the  Indians  by 
letting  whites  enter  upon  all  the  land  adjacent  to  the 
Indian  allotments,  since  such  settling  of  the  country  is 
bound  to  raise  the  value  of  the  allotments  themselves. 
What  advantage  the  Indians  are  to  derive  from  this  in- 
crease in  the  value  of  their  lands  it  is  hard  to  see.  It  will 
not  increase  the  fertility  of  the  soil;  it  will  not  develop 
gold  diggings,  or  oil  wells,  or  any  other  new  sources  of 
wealth;  it  will  not  enable  them  to  raise  bananas  and 
oranges  on  the  forty-third  parallel  of  north  latitude.  The 
only  increase  must  be  in  the  market  value,  and  of  what 
account  is  the  market  value  of  anything  to  a man  who 
cannot  sell  it,  as  the  allotted  Indian  is  obligated  not  to  sell 
his  land  for  a term  of  years. 

The  manly  course  would  have  been  for  Congress  to  say: 


23 


“ Here  is  the  law.  Our  body  is  all  powerful.  The  highest 
tribunal  in  the  land  has  left  us  free  to  do  whatever  we 
please  with  Indian  land.  We  have  fixed  our  eyes  on  your 
416,000  acres,  and  we  purpose  to  take  them  and  give  them 
to  the  whites  for  settlement.  If  we  can  collect  from  the 
whites  $2.50  an  acre,  we  will  pay  the  money  to  you;  if 
not,  not.  You  are  helpless,  so  the  wise  thing  for  you  to 
do  is  to  bow  to  the  inevitable.” 

Then  the  Indians  would  have  realized  the  full  meaning 
of  the  transaction.  So  would  seven-eighths  of  the  Amer- 
ican people,  who  are  not  land-grabbers,  even  when  the 
helpless  Indian  is  the  victim  marked  for  plunder. 

F.  E.  L. 


